Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & MBK004 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Coren (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Pillars

[edit]

1) Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm not sure that the terminology used here is ideal—the three core content policies form only one of the five pillars, and some of the other pillars tend to be interpreted more flexibly than others—but the substantive point here is correct. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Original research

[edit]

2) Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.

Support:
  1. Wikipedia articles must reflect the extant literature; they report what reliable sources state but they cannot be used to advance a new interpretation or novel theories. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With the proviso that such conclusions need not necessarily be espoused by the authors of said reliable sources; it is acceptable to mention a discredited theory if that theory is covered in a reliable source, provided that our statements about it are supported by the source itself. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Kirill. Changed punctuation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Primary sources

[edit]

3) The use of primary sources to cite article content is generally not allowable. While some limited use is permissible in very specific circumstances, their use to support or rebut a position in an article is generally original research. In particular, alternative points of views in a topic area must be already expressed in reliable, independent sources to be included in an article.

Support:
  1. In short, "secondary sources trump primary sources". Interpreting raw data or information is, by definition, what WP:NOR is about. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close to abstaining, as CHL says below, but generally ok. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice, prefer 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Largely per Carcharoth; the use of primary sources to advance particular points of view is problematic, but their use is permitted in a reasonably wide range of other circumstances. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 3.1 - Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 3.1 too.  Roger Davies talk 21:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer language of 3.1 Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Would prefer something closer to the language of WP:SYN or WP:PSTS. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this principle starts off on the wrong foot. I can't support the first sentence (because use of primary sources to support uncontroversial statements of fact is widespread in Wikipedia), but I can support the last sentence. The key is to buttress with secondary sources in disputed areas, and to not use primary sources to engage in synthesis (or indeed engage in any synthesis at all). But some primary sources do have their uses on Wikipedia, and I think better wording of this principle is needed. To go further, I agree absolutely that the topic in dispute here is one where primary sources have very limited uses and secondary sources absolutely need to be followed, but the principle generalises this too much. A principle on this matter that has strong or unanimous support from arbitrators would be good, as this issue is central to this case. Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct use of sources

[edit]

3.1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Support:
  1. Taken from WP:PSTS per CHL in the comments on principle 3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good. I think 3 is an overly aggressive take on policy. Cool Hand Luke 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Better. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 21:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Self-published sources

[edit]

4) Self-published sources, including books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs, are largely not acceptable. While they may occasionally be used as source of information on themselves, they do not constitute reliable sources as required by our policies on verifiability and original research.

Support:
  1. In other words, a self-published source that makes a claim can at most be cited to support that that source makes that claim; not as support for the claim itself. Even then it's only generally appropriate to do so when the topic of the article is the source itself. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support the principle. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Though I may have missed where self-published material was majorly problematic in this case, it does come up a few times. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Coren. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. WP:V suggests that self-published "expert" sources may be considered reliable in some circumstances. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Irrelevant, and—as Kirill says—an over-simplification of policy. Cool Hand Luke 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sources need to be evaluated on their merits; this statement casts too wide a net. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill and Shell; in any event, not needed for this decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I'm not sure of the relevance of this one. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

[edit]

5) Mediation — whether formal or informal — is a voluntary process to help editors who are having a dispute. While it serves the valuable function of facilitating agreement between good faith participants, it cannot make binding decisions on contents or sanction users.

Support:
  1. That is, it's a tool to reach consensus, not to impose a solution. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Advocacy

[edit]

6) Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.

Support:
  1. In other words, making "the truth" known isn't what Wikipedia articles are for. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed. Wikipedia is not for posting unique theories/points of view that do not find traction elsewhere. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agreed. This principle is also key to this case, with the usual caveat that getting the balance wrong either way is bad. My view is that two lines in the sand need to be drawn, to make sure things don't go too far in either direction. In some cases, trying to define a single line in the sand for the article's balanced position is unrealistic and a permanent battleground. Attempting to keep an article somewhere between two close positions is better than swinging wildly between two extremes. Define the extremes and define the grey area and keep the article in that grey area and keep refining it there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is key to the case; if you find yourself pushing a particular view into an article rather than attempt to create a coherent picture of the topic as a whole, you've missed the point of NPOV. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Single issue editors

[edit]

7) While there is no prohibition against editors focusing exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a single article or topic area, the community has historically been wary of editors who do so: in many cases, editors who contribute to a single narrow topic area do so in order to advance a specific point of view rather than to improve the encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. That is, while it's not prohibited, consensus is that it's a generally bad idea and is generally viewed as a symptom of advocacy. — Coren (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's a concerning factor, usually those who only care about one subject have a rather strong POV on that subject. Do understand where CHL is coming from, however. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I actually like this wording, as it avoids the perjorative SPA language. My view is that diversity in editing should be encouraged, as it helps editors to gain perspective and experience in other areas. But equally, editors need to be given the chance to gain that diversity, and instant labelling of new accounts as SPAs is classic WP:BITE behaviour. I could also support a wording that adds the caveat that many editors who contribute to a single narrow topic area do so without any problems whatsoever. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support for inclusion of both 7 and 7.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 7.1.  Roger Davies talk 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 7.1, which removes the presumption of wrongdoing. The crucial question about SPAs is whether there is misconduct (misusing sources, POV pushing), not about edit count itself. Cool Hand Luke 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 7.1 - Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 7.1 Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Is there a reason we don't use the existing SPA principles? e.g. Cool Hand Luke 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single purpose accounts

[edit]

7.1) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Support:
  1. Boilerplate.  Roger Davies talk 16:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Could also support a wording that includes "the community has historically been wary of editors who do so", plus a wording that encourages diversity in editing, and treating such editors on a case-by-case basis, as some will cause no problems and others will be causing problems. Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is also a key point in the case. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support for inclusion of both 7 and 7.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Decorum

[edit]

8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Adding an extra principle to go with findings and remedies to be added soon. This principle would normally be near the beginning of the set of principles, but is here because it is a late addition to the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Standard. Kirill [talk] [prof] 17:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 18:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lengthy evidence and sub-pages

[edit]

9) Longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion is that editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the case closes, the sub-pages should be courtesy-blanked or deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Evidence should properly be submitted only on arbitration pages as it is impossible to ensure that all the parties are aware of all the sub-pages that might have a bearing on them. If the evidence runs over the permitted length, it should not be continued on sub-pages but instead permission should be sought from the drafting arbitrator for an over-length submission.

Support:
  1. This case has dozens of these, mostly of little or no evidential value.  Roger Davies talk 07:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, these have gotten out of hand; hopefully these are the last cases where users post subpages to evade the evidence length restriction. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If you can't say it concisely, and succinctly, then you're better off not saying it, probably. I know a couple times going over all the information provided, I just had to sit back and try to straighten out the Gordian Knot that the evidence became, all twisted up upon itself, going nowhere. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The word limit is there for a good reason; it's time to make it really count. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. There is tension between enforcing the word limits on submissions (statements or evidence), the desire to have reasonably complete and useful submissions, and the desire for all the information the arbitrators need to be in one place. The committee and its clerks probably need to continue thinking about this subject, which has been a perennial one, but a multiplicity of evidence subpages all over the place certainly does not well serve either the parties or the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Tag-team editing

[edit]

10) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 08:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kirill and Carcharoth. Editors (tendentious and otherwise) already make these allegations - recent examples can be found in the evidence both for this case (from early June onwards) and the T-M one - and this principle is a response to them. The wording here focuses on collusion to breach policy (each of the specified instances is policy not guideline). Happy to consider alternative wording.  Roger Davies talk 04:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mailer Diablo 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 06:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Not quite sure this particular formulation is helpful; tendentious editors opposed by genuine consensus will, of course, also claim that those ranged against them are a tag team. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Kirill that we need to get the wording right here, as tackling this sort of conduct can be fraught with problems if the wrong approach is taken or the principle abused or misunderstood (not that it doesn't need to be tackled). Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The trick, of course, is describing how one distinguishes between inappropriate "tag-teaming" and entirely appropriate collaboration that includes two or more editors with the same view on article content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

Note: findings on individual editors to be added as findings 5 onwards. 02:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Background findings now removed in favour of specific conduct findings. Carcharoth (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of the dispute (1)

[edit]

1) The dispute is based around a significant disagreement about the content of the Race and intelligence article, as well as a number of related or similar articles discussing a genetic basis for significant social disparity between different ethnic groups. The related articles also include biographies of researchers investigating the topic.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked wording for flow. Also prefer "locus" to "focus", but that's not important. Carcharoth (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 1.1  Roger Davies talk 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 1.1 Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 1.1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 1.1. Carcharoth (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 1.1. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 1.1 - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Locus and focus of dispute (1.1)

[edit]

1.1) The dispute is focused on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category. The core issue is whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors. The dispute may be characterised as comprising: (i) consistent point-of-view pushing; (ii) persistent edit-warring; and (iii) incessant over-emphasis on certain controversial sources.

Support:
  1. There seems to be some support for rolling 1) and 2) into a single finding of fact so I offer this as a replacement for both of them.  Roger Davies talk 07:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer the rolling into this one. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine as well. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hopefully it will be clear which finding is preferred here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. I note that this formulation has greater assent from the parties themselves; while hardly dispositive, it is relevant in understanding how the parties perceive their dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Focus of the dispute (2)

[edit]

2) At its core, the dispute centers on the inclusion of a number of primary sources that advances the hypothesis that differences in a number of social phenomena (primarily intelligence as tested) are explained mostly or in part by genetics and ethnic background while the secondary sources generally dismiss those claims. Editors advancing those sources claim that their use is required to make the articles neutral, while editors rejecting those sources claim that they give undue prominence to a minority or "fringe" position that is not reflected in the literature.

Support:
  1. In particular, the claim that it is not possible to find many secondary sources is caused by political suppression is often offered as justification to rely on primary sources. I remain unconvinced that a significant viewpoint, no matter how unpolitical, would remain uncovered by reliable secondary sources. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, prefer 2.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think this is a wholly accurate summary. The content argument is more nuanced than this, and the state of the sources is less clear-cut. Moreover, I don't think that the apparent SPA accounts confine their pushing to primary sources. At any rate, I do not think such a finding is desirable or necessary; it's all but a content ruling. Imagine a similar finding for the now-pending Global Warming case. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Cool Hand Luke. A less specific finding is possible here that still delineates the problems. One possible finding is that the editors of this topic are failing to agree on how to use sources and indeed failing to agree on what sources to use. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Effectively a content ruling. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 14:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not quite an oppose, strays a bit too close to content ruling for my peace of mind. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of the dispute (2.1)

[edit]

2.1) At its core, the dispute centers on disagreements over the correct use of primary and secondary sources, as well as claims that editors are giving undue prominence to aspects of the debate covered in the race and intelligence article beyond that which is reflected in the literature.

Support:
Would be happy to just have finding 1 to define the scope of the case, but if more detail is needed, then this is as far as we should go in characterising it, and is presented as an alternative to finding 2. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support rolling this into 1. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. SirFozzie (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice, though I'd prefer "includes" to "centers on" here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 1.1.  Roger Davies talk 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think 1.1 covers the scope. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 1.1. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 1.1. Carcharoth (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer 1.1. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 1.1 - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Editor behavior

[edit]

3) Editor behavior on all sides of the issue has often been less than optimal, and the tone of discussion has occasionally strayed into incivility. Given the emotional and controversial nature of the underlying dispute, this is undesirable but understandable and generally does not raise to the level where sanctions are necessary.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree that all sides have behaved poorly at times, however I believe individual findings are also necessary here. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In some cases, does not. I do not think generally applies here. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've come to believe that individual sanctions are necessary. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I also think individual sanctions are needed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Since we're going to vote on individual findings. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 14:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It does sometimes. And being understandable does not make it okay nor excusable. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I fear that more than "occasional" incivility has been present in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Too broad, too vague. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Informal mediation

[edit]

4) During the dispute, some (but not all) of the participants have engaged in informal mediation[1] with the Mediation Cabal. While well-intended, that attempt at mediation was fundamentally flawed because it purported to create a binding decision and proceeded despite major participants having refused mediation.

Support:
  1. It seems clear that, no matter how well intended, the results of that flawed mediation cannot be used as a show of consensus given the limited involvement of some of the main parties and the unorthodox manner in which it proceeded. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Involuntary binding mediation is a ship that sailed in 2004, for better or for worse. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For worse, I'd say, myself. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While noting there were some good aspects to how the mediation was handled, and the way concerns with the mediation were raised was not ideal and better ways should be found to allow objections to such mediations short of participating in them. Mediations should always aim to provide a limited agreement between the parties to a mediation, with the caveat that the wider community may disagree with the results of the mediation, so the results can never be binding other than binding between the parties to the mediation. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 14:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Despite good intentions, there were significant problems in the way the mediation was conducted and the supposed result. While I would hope that this would have been a learning experience, Ludwig's continued insistence that he didn't have a bias and that this mediation was without flaw is a serious concern. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Having just reviewed a later mediation of Lugwig2's, he appears to have taken the comments on board. Shell babelfish 08:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not sure this bears mention in the final decision, but given the consensus here that it does, it is accurately framed and I can support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mathsci (conduct) [1]

[edit]

5) Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on Baroque music, since they first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. Their interest in race and intelligence appears to have started last autumn. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [2][3][4] and in edit summaries;[5][6] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier";[7] routinely threatens other editors with blocks,[8][9][10] and has made other, veiled threats.[11] The editor has also engaged in edit-warring with long series of reverts in short periods, notably in May 2010,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and again in June 2010.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 19:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the aggression is unnecessary. I think Mathsci can see the 'outing' diff in question, but if he can't he should request a copy of what was said then. I agree with the veiled threats comment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Withdrawing my support until problems with the finding are addressed. 01:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Re-establishing support. 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 13:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The incivil remarks and generally combative behavior are problematic. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I agree that Mathsci has made a significant number of problematic edits in connection with this topic area, some of which are cited in the proposed finding. At the same time, I also am of the view that for the most part Mathsci has acted in good faith in what he perceived as an attempt to protect a controversial article on our high-profile encyclopedia from being skewed by what he perceived as a group of editors pushing a point of view with troubling overtones. Review of his detailed, indeed horrendously overlong, evidence submissions in this case and his overall record of contributions reflects a dedicated long-term editor with varied interests and a meticulous regard for facts. I also find the remedy that voted by the narrowest possible margin in the Abd-WMC case, without a supporting finding of fact, to be of limited relevance here, although I can agree that it should have reinforced to Mathsci that he needed to follow our conduct policies and guidelines even under perceived extreme provocation. In sum, I believe that Mathsci's instances of poor conduct as shown in the finding, while significant, should be understood in light of the overall situation. While I cannot say that the substance of this finding, taken as a whole, is incorrect, I can say that it is not sufficiently balanced to gain my concurrence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Newyorkbrad and in preference for finding 5.1 below. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Mathsci (conduct) [2]

[edit]

5.1) Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed to a wide range of articles, many focusing on mathematics and baroque music, since he first edited Wikipedia in February 2006. His interest in articles related to race and intelligence appears to have started in autumn 2007. Almost all his content edits to these articles began in April 2010 following a mediation process. Since then, within the area of dispute, the user has acted in good faith in what he perceived as an attempt to protect articles from being skewed by what he perceived as a group of editors pushing a point of view with troubling overtones. In the area of dispute, however, he has engaged in incivility and personal attacks in text, [26][27][28] and in edit summaries;[29][30] once went so far as to accuse one editor of being a "holocaust denier";[31] routinely threatens other editors with blocks,[32][33][34] and has made other, veiled threats.[35] His editing of articles and their talk pages has been unduly aggressive and combative, with borderline edit warring in May [36][37][38][39] and June.[40][41][42][43] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration.

Support:
  1. Proposed as alternative to finding 5. Carcharoth (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice, but I definitely do support 5 in order to expeditiously wrap this up one way or another. Cool Hand Luke 14:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. An improvement on 5 that, on balance, I can support. I also acknowledge Mathsci's admission of some of his own faults in this matter, and acceptance that he should cease editing in this topic area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer this one. Shell babelfish 00:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 05:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:

David.Kane (conduct)

[edit]

6) David.Kane (talk · contribs) has edited since June 2006 but has effectively been operating as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since October 2009. In essence, this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view. In pursuit of his agenda, he has disruptively removed sourced material (sometimes spuriously claiming BLP violation),[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] has engaged in disruptive forum shopping at the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard,[52][53][54] has tag-teamed with users Mikemikev and Captain Occam.[55][56][57] and has gamed the system with a spurious outing complaint at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents[58]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    De-duplicated diffs. Roger Davies talk 10:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kirill. Indeed, consensus was soon reached at BLP/N was that this was a not a BLP issue but the claims/reversions continued anyway.  Roger Davies talk 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some of the diffs are reused a tad repetitively in the finding, and I hope this does not discourage use of the BLP noticeboard, but I agree with the essence of this finding of fact. In a topic area like this, this sort of conduct is not helpful. Much higher standards are needed, and editors need to be able to consider all sides of the dispute, not just one side of it or one small aspect of it, as seems to be the case here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Compliance with the BLP policy is obviously of paramount importance; but this doesn't mean that every complaint which happens to cite BLP must necessarily be viewed as sacrosanct, nor that a BLP-related argument cannot constitute tendentious editing within the context of a broader dispute. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think this is spot on. And, as with any other issue, if other editors (especially those that are uninvolved) tell you that something is not a BLP (copyright, undue weight, unreliable source) issue, then it's time to drop the stick. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I would place less relevance on the alleged BLP dispute involving the Jensen article, whose depiction in the secondary literature may indeed be a subject of some legitimate disagreement. However, there is sufficient evidence of problematic behavior for me to support the essence of the overall finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. What Kirill said. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Captain Occam (conduct)

[edit]

7) Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first edited in November 2006, started contributing regularly in July 2009, and has race and intelligence-related articles as his almost exclusive focus. Of the 306 edits made to date to his ten most-edited articles, only 17 (6%) do not relate to race and intelligence.[59] His disruptive behaviour (primarily edit-warring and wholesale reversion)[60] first attracted sysop attention in October 2009, since when he has been blocked on four occasions.[61] Controversy surrounds the fourth block and associated editing restrictions, which were later rescinded.[62] Nevertheless, this user edit-warred on 9 June 2010,[63][64][65] and returned, on 17 June 2010, to reinstate substantially the same material.[66][67] In addition to the long-term edit-warring, this editor has also tag-team edit-warred alongside Mikemikev and David.Kane,[68][69][70][71][72] and has gamed the system by claiming consensus for article versions which support his point of view.[73][74][75][76][77]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 05:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Revised and updated, 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely would be considered a SPA in this area. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good summary. Rather than tag-teaming, the extend of the coordination looks much like meatpuppetry. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Without agreeing that each and every diff reflects misconduct, the essence of the finding is accurate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree with NYB. Cool Hand Luke 16:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Note: I need to look at this. I was not quite convinced by the initial version, but I see it's been significantly expanded. Give me a day to look it over. Cool Hand Luke 15:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikemikev (conduct)

[edit]

8) Mikemikev (talk · contribs) has edited as a single-purpose account in the disputed topic area since December 2009. Mikemikev has made less than 700 edits in this time, and has treated the disputed topic area as a battleground,[78][79][80] has imported an "us vs. them" mentality,[81][82] and has repeatedly directed incivility and personal attacks upon those who disagree with him, both in posts [83][84][85][86][87] [88] and in edit summaries.[89] In this time, Mikemikev has also disrupted Wikipedia with frivolous personality-directed requests,[90][91] and has edit-warred in the topic on at least two occasions: in April 2010 [92][93][94][95] and in August 2010 [96][97][98], which is especially remarkable as Mikemikev has only about 100 mainspace edits total.[99]

Note: During the voting phase, this user was indefinitely blocked[100] following a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.[101]  Roger Davies talk 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cool Hand Luke 16:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Source probation

[edit]

1) Articles in the topic area of Race and Intelligence, broadly construed, are put on source probation. All sources used in all articles of the topic area must be independent, secondary sources that meets the guidelines of reliable sources. Disagreement about whether a source does or does not meet the guideline should be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard for evaluation by uninvolved editors.

Support:
  1. This is as close to a content ruling as I am comfortable making; but the fact of the matter is that those articles have been plagued by original research and fixing that will fix the rest. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Well, RSN regulars cannot reach consensus about one of these attributes, and even the author of this remedy seems unsure about the meaning. I'm also uncomfortable that the author admits that the proposed decision is all but a content ruling, which—worse in my view—doesn't seem resolve the dispute. For example, this remedy instead simply pushes the dispute onto RSN where it will continue to churn without a reasonable chance of resolution. Similarly, the edit counting remedy doesn't do anything to improve the quality of R/I edits, and instead promotes a edit-counting game. I am convinced that the cause of this case is agenda pushing. I wish the remedies would treat the cause rather than the symptoms. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems the secondary/primary sources debate still has some way to go for Wikipedia in general (though it seems to be a problem of terminology rather than anything else - a good writer will know what the difference is between the sources they are using). Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too much of a content ruling for my taste. Consulting the RSN is a standard approach to resolving sourcing disputes, in any case; I see no reason why pointing people at it will help matters here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A very creative idea (which we need more of) but in this case, I think the problem is rather clearly conduct issues. Once those are resolved, I believe this issue can be handled through regular channels. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per other opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Feels like a content ruling, possibly with much wider implications. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Editors reminded

[edit]

2) All editors are reminded that using primary sources or sources that are not considered reliable to "rebut" secondary sources constitute original research and is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Citing the existence of such primary sources is not a problem (the original papers that sparked this topic area should be cited, for example, but only in a limited fashion). It all depends on how "rebut" is defined. Using the right wording, it is possible to present the history to the reader and let them draw their own conclusions. Also, conflating primary and unreliable sources is not ideal here. I would support a remedy about unreliable sources (e.g. blogs and self-published material) for this topic, but not one about primary sources. Carcharoth (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As written, I believe that this is false in many cases, as when the secondary source is about a primary source, and describes an aspect of the primary source that would have be made more clear by citing that source. For example, if a law review article were to characterize an opinion as dismissing an argument, I do not think it would be OR to quote the passage dismissing the argument, if the opinion adds clarity within the context of the article. Cool Hand Luke 00:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Too simplistic; not all secondary sources are equally authoritative. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. After further thought. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This depends too much on the exact circumstances. In this case, this appears to have been problematic but more likely due to the conduct of editors than the technique itself. There will be times where it is appropriate to call into question the reliability of a secondary source based on conflicting data elsewhere. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not at the heart of the case. I can, incidentally, readily imagine a situation where Book A says X, and later Books B and C say "Book A says Y". I am not convinced that it constitutes forbidden original research for an editor to point out that "Book A really says X, and to the extent B and C claim A says Y, B and C are wrong," and I certainly wouldn't support an arbitration finding against the editor merely for doing that. The conduct issues on this case, however, go well beyond that particular scenario. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Feels like a content ruling, possibly with much wider implications. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Need more time to think this over. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic restrictions (1)

[edit]

3) All named parties to this case are subject to the following restriction for one year: edits to the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed, including talk pages must constitute no more than one half of their total edits outside project space.

Support:
  1. With a note that the exact list of parties will be revised before the case closes to ensure it is correct. This is an admittedly novel remedy; but the attempt is worth it in my opinion; focusing exclusively on a topic area in unhealthy at best, and often leads to a biased perspective. — Coren (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I prefer remedies that prevent gaming. Edit counts are misleading in RFA, and they are triply bizarre as a measurement for involvement from an RFAR decision. In other words: If the editors involved install Huggle and run it occasionally, are we really better off? Cool Hand Luke 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I commend Coren for thinking outside the box, and trying to bring balance to things, I dislike this proposed remedy. We should be de-emphasizing editcountitis, not emphasizing it. SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose this formulation, though I think some of the talk page alternatives may work, such as applying this retrospectively. Carcharoth (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too easy to game. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This was a really interesting idea, but in this particular case we've already seen a lot of gaming evidenced and I fear that this would be treated as another opportunity for such. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per other opposers. I also have qualms about telling our volunteer editors where they must volunteer their time and effort, beyond the extent necessary to prevent misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too broad, and susceptible to gaming. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:

Topic restrictions (2)

[edit]

3.1) All named parties to this case are topic banned from articles in the topic area of race and intelligence, broadly construed for a mininum of three months. During this timeframe, editors will need to show that they can edit in other areas without issues. At the expiration of this restriction, parties can petition the Committee to lift this sanction.

Support:
  1. I don't like to encourage editcount-itis, but it seems to be the feeling that there are quite a few editors in this area who have an unhealthy fixation in this area. I would prefer that we give them an opportunity to show that they can edit in other areas without trouble, and then we can see about letting them back in. Again, we can go through the party list and trim it down, or vote on individual sanctions if need be. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. First, the list of parties needs to be trimmed, as Shell said in her acceptance of the case. Second, we should just topic ban indefinitely or for a year, with instructions that those topic banned should petition after three months. Thirdly, we should vote on proposals for individual editors, as I don't think we've ever handed out blanket topic bans and that is not how we should handle such sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is unlikely to prove anything; the nature of the dispute is such that the editors probably can edit peacefully in other areas, yet return to fighting if they participate on this topic again. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too broad. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In lieu of individual remedies below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Too broad, and susceptible to gaming. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I support topic bans, but I believe this case calls for an individualized approach now, not later. I am open to this approach, however, if other arbitrators prefer it. It's infinitely better than 3, and it gives the SPAs a chance to prove whether or not they are hopelessly fixated on this topic. But if we're going to almost certainly remove the restriction from non-SPAs in three months anyway, why not just exempt them now? Cool Hand Luke 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

4) Editors engaged in long-term tendentious editing, on their own or in concert with other editors, to push a point of view on race-related articles, may be topic-banned from articles and talk pages related to race, broadly interpreted, by any uninvolved administrator. The administrator may determine the period of the topic ban at their discretion. All such topic bans shall be logged on the arbitration case pages.

Support:
  1. Taken from the workshop pages. I still intend to propose individual findings and remedies, but this proposal is designed to cover future editing problems on any race-related articles similar to the problems seen here. Possibly this is too broad, so alternative proposals should be put forward if this does not gain support. I also intend to use this formulation for any proposed topic bans for individual editors, as the problems I've seen extend beyond just the article that is at the centre of this dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer Rem #5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 5.  Roger Davies talk 14:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 5 is better — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 5.1 Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer discretionary sanctions below, coupled with the individual remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer 5/5.1 - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Discretionary sanctions

[edit]

5) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.

Support:
  1. If we're going to leave things to administrative discretion, we might as well allow access to the full set of tools. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Prefer 5.1 as it sets out behavioural parameters,  Roger Davies talk 07:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal preference to 5.1. (I realize that doesn't help the clerks at all....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal preference to 5.1 - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 5.1 Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 5.1 Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I support the concept in principle, but would prefer a little more guidance for admins who patrol this area. Cool Hand Luke 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions

[edit]

5.1) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles within the Category:Race and intelligence controversy are cautioned that this topic has previously been subject to extensive disruption, which created a hostile editing environment. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that they adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, and avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments.

To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for "race and intelligence" and all closely related articles.

Support:
  1. Alternative to 5). First choice.  Roger Davies talk 07:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Revised to live category.[102] Cool Hand Luke 13:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third Choice. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice; I don't see any real need to remind editors of fundamental policy yet another time. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal preference to 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Equal preference to 5 - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
[edit]

6) Mathsci (talk · contribs) has consented[103] to a binding topic ban from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Amended 23:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Changing to support in light of Mathsci's post on the talkpage, and the edits above. Note that "voluntary" in this context really means "consented-to"; it does not mean that Mathsci can un-volunteer later, except with the committee's approval per the enforcement provisions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Newyorkbrad. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Wording changed per Newyorkbrad's comment above. 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Mathsci's comments. Shell babelfish 21:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I believe the evidence shows a type of discretionary sanction based on incivil behavior might be helpful since this seems to spill to other areas, but I don't see anything here that suggests a topic ban would resolve the issue. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
I won't oppose this, but I'm not convinced a full topic ban is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Moving to support. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer my new proposal 6.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Change to support per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci topic-banned and cautioned

[edit]

6.1) Mathsci (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed, for a period of 60 days, it being the committee's hope that in the interim these articles will gain attention from editors who have not been part of the editing disputes giving rise to this case. Thereafter, Mathsci is urged to voluntarily refrain from editing in this topic area, or any other controversial topic area, unless and until he is satisfied that he can do so without violating Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, even in the face of serious actual or perceived provocation.

Support:
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that in light of Mathsci's post on the talkpage, and the change made in the wording of 6 above, we will go ahead and pass 6 in lieu of this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. It is in the project's best interests—and quite likely Mathsci's as well—that Mathsci not continue editing in this area; I see no benefit to trying to hide that point under a layer of temporary or voluntary restrictions. If we're going to ban someone, then we should do so directly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not satisfied with the wording here (I dislike "urged" remedies aimed at individuals rather than the community), and like Kirill I think voluntary restrictions make this too complicated. Mathsci, and the other editors, have the option to apply for the topic ban to be lifted later as specified in the enforcement section. Mathsci at least has said he wants to go back to working in other areas, so although I'm abstaining on the full topic ban, I'm opposing this variant as worded. It should either be a simple topic ban or nothing. Not some complicated instruction to follow. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I cannot support this either for much the same reasons as those articulated by Kirill and Carcharoth. I must also add that Mathsci does excellent work, beautiful work, in other areas and they are a much fit for someone of his temperament and many undoubted qualities than this particular battleground.  Roger Davies talk 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

David.Kane topic-banned

[edit]

7) David.Kane (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Noting that any topic-bans adopted are subject to enforcement paragraph 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Captain Occam topic-banned

[edit]

8) Captain Occam (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. See my comment on 7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Mikemikev site-banned and thereafter topic-banned

[edit]

9) Mikemikev (talk · contribs) is site-banned for twelve months, and thereafter topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed, and may edit only from one account.

Note: During the voting phase, this user was indefinitely blocked[104] following a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.[105]  Roger Davies talk 16:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I think the best way to handle this is to redo the indefinite block to add a note to the block log about the one-year site ban. 08:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. To be put in effect if the indef block were to be removed. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Shell. I note that this editor has posted on his talkpage that he "would rather die than be unblocked"; I hope that the former prospect is not imminent, but the latter surely is not either. Semantically, I moved "may edit only from one account" to the end of the sentence for clarity, as the status quo is that this editor may edit from no accounts at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Evidence sub-pages (remedy)

[edit]

10) Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either (i) courtesy blank any sub-pages they have created relating to this case or (ii) request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} templates. Nothing in this remedy prevents at any time any other editor from requesting deletion of the subpages via the Miscellany for deletion process nor any uninvolved adminstrator from deleting them under the applicable Criteria for speedy deletion.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 07:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "nor any uninvolved adminstrator from deleting them under the applicable Criteria for speedy deletion." for comprehensiveness.  Roger Davies talk 05:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes; this would have been appropriate in some prior cases as well. Cool Hand Luke 13:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We should probably make this a general procedure for all cases. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I hope our procedure in future cases is not to allow them at all. We should liberally grant enlargements for parties who need more space for presenting evidence (evidence, with diffs, not rambling). User space should not be a storage bin for extending evidence presentations to indefinite length. I wish we put our foot down after the WMC-Abd case... Cool Hand Luke 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I also wish I'd done this in the T-M case.  Roger Davies talk 05:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nuke with extreme prejudice. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With the caveat that anything cited in the final decision should be moved to the case pages. Carcharoth (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Shell babelfish 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Please also see my comment on principle 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement

[edit]

1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy with this in general for whatever passes. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming any restriction is imposed. Kirill [talk] [prof] 18:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'll support this just in case, but I'm not sure it has any actual application; to the extent users are being topic-banned paragraph 2 will apply, and to the extent users are subject to discretionary sanctions, the procedures in the discretionary sanctions policy will apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 2 Shell babelfish 06:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 2. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 2. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 2. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Abstain on remedy 3 above, willing to support on 3.1 SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (striking now that we have new remedies. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of topic-bans by block

[edit]

2) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently arbitration enforcement), or the Committee.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not just looking for featured content work, I'm looking for work that proves the first sentence. "Commitment to the goals of wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors." Featured content is one way to get there, but not the only way. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Should be two separate bits, really. Conditions for applying for lifting of the topic ban isn't really "enforcement". Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Now split into two sections. 01:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 06:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 16:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Review of topic-bans

[edit]

3) Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. The Committee will consider each request individually, but will look favourably on participation in the featured content process, including both production of any type of featured content, as well as constructive participation in featured content candidacies and reviews. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and further reviews will take place no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 10:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not just looking for featured content work, I'm looking for work that proves the first sentence. "Commitment to the goals of wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors." Featured content is one way to get there, but not the only way. SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Should be two separate bits, really. Conditions for applying for lifting of the topic ban isn't really "enforcement". Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Now split into two sections. 01:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Shell babelfish 06:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per SirFozzie. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mailer Diablo 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass
Passing principles: 1, 2, 3.1, 5, 6, 7.1, 8, 9, 10"
Passing findings: 1.1, 4, 5.1, 6, 7, 8
Passing remedies: 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9,[1] 10
Passing enforcement provisions: 2, 3
Proposals which do not pass
Failing principles: 3, 4, 7
Failing findings: 1, 2, 2.1, 3, 5
Failing remedies: 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 4, 5, 6.1
Failing enforcement provisions: 1
  1. ^ A clerk should make a note in the block log to indicate that in the case that his indefinite block is successfully appealed to the community, it should be converted into a block to expire 1 year after the closure of the ArbCom case.
Note: by my counts Finding 2.1, and Enforcement 1, are both failing since, with a required majority of 6, they each have only 5 supports with 0 abstains. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to take that into account, nice catch. Updated. NW (Talk) 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, currently E1 is passing. Paul August ☎ 23:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's not. Paul August ☎ 01:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll double-check where things stand now, and the clerk should also double-check before carrying out the close. There are a couple of arbitrators yet to complete voting, so the full 24 hours should be given to allow them time to do so if they wish. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming that the implementation notes given here look correct to me and that remedy 5.1 passes and remedy 5 passes due to the abstain but 5.1 is the preferred remedy here. Some bits may change with more voting, but that can be taken into account if more voting occurs before the case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Close; it looks like we're done here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. The last major open issue, the Mathsci remedy, now seems to be resolved. I wouldn't mind a little more attention to the wording of the Mathsci finding of fact, as well, but if that's going to occur it can occur within the next 24-48 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Close. I think we're all set here. SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Can close within next 24 hours. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Re-establishing support for close. 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close.  Roger Davies talk 05:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
A little bit more discussion may be needed. Will look at this again in 24 hours to see where things are. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One final issue to clear up before I can support closing the case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Proposed_decision&oldid=1044449404"